The Point of So Many Distros
Don Reisinger, a CNet blogger, just posted a look at the community behind Linux and some thoughts on all the Linux distros out there. His main point is that the community is incredibly helpful and I could not possibly agree with him any more. (Although he mostly focuses on how easy the community makes it to get support and that is very true, it is also worth noting that Linux and open-source software would not exist at all without the community.) He also discussed how there seem to be a few distros that have polished software and are generally very good and others that, in his view, are bad. (Go read the article and than you will understand what I am saying.) On this point, I disagree.
Lets face it, the Linux community has a lot of hardcore geeks in it. These are the kind of people who frequently rebuild their kernel to improve performance, compile all their software from scratch, consider GUIs useless, and so on. There is nothing wrong with that. I may be exaggerating some here, but this is the target audience for many Linux distros. When was the last time you heard Slackware trying to attract the “average user?”
Reisinger’s post suggests that everyone rally around the “good” distros and leave the others behind. This has happened. Distros like Ubuntu and OpenSuse that aim to be a distro for the “average user” are far more popular than the “geeky” distros, but it will never happen completely, because there are people who prefer the “geeky” distros. Instead of eliminating the “geeky” distros, these distros should simply make it clear that if you want a distro designed for the “average user” you should look to somewhere else. This way the right people will download the right distro for their needs and everyone will be happy. Part of the point of open-source software is that everyone can customize it to be exactly what they want.
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
You have to look at the nature of Linux. Linux is all the parts that make up Linux. A distro is only about some of those parts. The community has ongoing information on 400+ distros or combinations of Linux parts. So, you don’t have to put one together yourself. But to be able to build a Linux distro is a feature, not a flaw. If you can’t find a distro that suits you, you can make one from scratch or pick a popular distro, add or delete stuff until it does or not. That is the attraction and the rub.
To some folk the distros are all different and competing operating systems called Linux. This is not true. I use Xubuntu and Wolvix (Slackware), they are nearly identical in average use and geeky use. Same applications, same or similar tools, same desktop. Linux is Linux is Linux.
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I’m afraid I have to side with the article. And yes, I fall in the “end-user” category.
Of course I realise that there are specialist applications that require specilaist distributions. E.g. for when hardware constraints or disk space are extremely limited (or non-standard), and you really want just a trimmed-down kernel and perhaps 1-10 applications all in all, and nothing else. For example dedicated firewalls or dedicated routers. Such applications merit a specialised distribution.
And yes, there are special applications where you really really want a Linux that boots from a CD and doesn’t touch the hard disk (unless it’s told to do so): as rescue CDs, or diagnostic CDs. Fine … a specialised distribution for all of those.
And yes, there may be special distributions for e.g. computing labs where you really really want to have the same version and the same configuration of all your software on every single machine. Very well … a specialised distribution for those cases then.
And yes, there are those who wish for maximum control and configurability above anything else. In such cases I though we already have a perfectly good distribution: Debian.
I submit that in *all* other cases the objective is just to set up an end-user system.
As a consequence I regard any distribution that isn’t specialised isn’t Debian, and isn’t squarely aimed at end-users a totally redundant waste-of-time distribution. And yes, I think that such distributions merely pollute the software environment and should be buried (if not wiped) as soon as possible.
I mean … I have nothing against well-meaning amateurs, but at least have the decency not to call your cobbled-up package a “distribution”. It isn’t. It’s a botch-job.
Putting together a good distribution isn’t easy. Not because it’s so hard, but because it’s such a lot of work. Because ideally you would have to *test* every single package you include in the distribution.
As in:
– does it install?
– does it compile?
– are all dependencies satisfied and of the right version?
– does it load?
– does it run its standard case without errors?
Any distribution that doesn’t check this is basically a waste of time. So do us all a favour will you, and keep amateurishly bungled software collections misnomed as “distribution” to yourself. By all means have fun with compiling and recompiling anything you want in Linux. It was made for that. But just don’t litter the web with it.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Not to mention the distros tailored to other specialized niches. I would never run Dyne:bolic as my desktop, but I’d sure recommend it to someone whose main interest was messing around with music creation.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I agree. There should be the distros, but they should be labeled, separated if you will, from the average joe who gets confused by all the options. We wrote a great article on this http://linuxhow2.com/Feature_Articles/Whichbuntu.html and about how Ubuntu should consider consolidating their efforts, not eliminate the distros, but convert them to packages to alleviate confusion and increase mass appeal.
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I think the true essence of Open Source software is that you can customize and do whatever you want with the software. And this exact notion is embodied in the fact that every ethusiast developer can go ahead and roll his own Distro. If he does a good job, the community supports him and adds eye-candy, driver support, etc. in the distro. However, if his product is too specific to his needs, a very small but focussed bunch of individuals will be involved in the project.
All in all, I think it’s a win-win situation
January 24th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Any distribution that doesn’t check this is basically a waste of
time. So do us all a favour will you, and keep amateurishly
bungled software collections misnomed as “distribution” to
yourself. By all means have fun with compiling and recompiling
anything you want in Linux. It was made for that. But just don’t
litter the web with it.
>
>
Like you idiots are littering the web with your lame comments and suggestions to people who don’t give a damn about you? There’s a simple solution to the problem you losers are having. Don’t use Linux or GPL software at all. That way you have nothing to whine about.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
I think you all have good points, the bar for what constitutes a “distro” should be kept high so that end-users aren’t deluded. The Ubuntu thing is another story. Perhaps a more seamless way to add/change/delete a window manager or desktop should be designed. That way we wouldn’t have to endure another “_ubuntu”.
http://www.polishlinux.org is a neat web site to see and compare popular end-user linuxes.
The folks who list the live-CD Linux should do a better job.